Candace Hardy appealed the March 9 judgment dismissing her suit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 25.

Hardy initially sued Bed, Beth & Beyond in June 2017 with claims it deceived customers when it sold a pillowcase with a label that stated it was 100 percent pima cotton. Hardy alleged in her lawsuit the items in question only have 2 percent pima cotton.

The defendant responded with a motion to dismiss, which the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted. Bed, Bath & Beyond stated Hardy’s complaint didn’t have standing and pointed out she didn’t state a claim for the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTA) or declaratory relief.

The district court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss, stating Hardy did not prove she had standing as well as noting she failed to file an amended complaint.

When it came to the FDUTA claim, the appeals court stated in the opinion, “the only injury Hardy claims to have actually suffered is the outlay of funds of a product she did not actually receive: as she sets forth in her response to BB&B’s motion, her damages are the result of her having part[ed] with money to purchase a misbranded product.”

Still, the appeals court added the defendant offered Hardy a refund before the legal activity even began.

As for the declaratory judgment dismissal, the appeals court backed it and stated Hardy did not have sufficient standing to ask for relief as she has not mentioned any concern of a future injury or potential and foreseen damages. The district court ultimately agreed with the defendant and granted its motion to dismiss.

Want to get notified whenever we write about
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
?

Sign-up
Next time we write about
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.